Filter raw_response output types for concrete fields #5091
Conversation
When generating a raw_response type for a concrete fields, we may (e.g.,) still be spreading a fragment which is for an abstract type. We should cut down our type selections based on the actual concrete type of the field, to generate more specific raw_response types. We should also mark the selections has having the same concrete type as our field, preventing redundant arms of the final TypeScript/Flow union types from being output. This makes the output raw response types a lot more pleasant to work with. Fixes facebook#5090
|
Hi @jwatzman! Thank you for your pull request. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and yours needs attention. You currently have a record in our system, but the CLA is no longer valid, and will need to be resubmitted. ProcessIn order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA. Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at [email protected]. Thanks! |
|
Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Meta Open Source project. Thanks! |
2 participants
When generating a raw_response type for a concrete fields, we may (e.g.,) still be spreading a fragment which is for an abstract type. We should cut down our type selections based on the actual concrete type of the field, to generate more specific raw_response types. We should also mark the selections has having the same concrete type as our field, preventing redundant arms of the final TypeScript/Flow union types from being output.
This makes the output raw response types a lot more pleasant to work with.
Fixes #5090